One Space Mission Delayed, While Plans for Giant Rocket Move Forward
- Posted on September 14, 2011 at 11:49am by
Liz Klimas
- Print »
- Email »
Today, the Obama administration announced plans and concept design for a giant rocket that it hopes will someday ferry astronauts to the Mars and other deep space missions. But as of right now, no one will be rocketing up there at all for at least couple months since the Russian space agency delayed a mission that was set to take place September 22.
Roscosmos announced yesterday it was still not ready to send a rocket up to the International Space Station after a vessel crashed last month en route to the ISS with supplies. The cause of the crash was later found to be a clogged fuel line. Now, it looks like the next mission to ISS to bring new crew members and supplies is set for November 12. According to the New York Times, there are currently six crew members on the ISS, but three will return home on one of the Soyuz capsules docked there this week:
The capsules are certified to last six months in orbit. The other three crew members must leave in the remaining capsule by Nov. 19, leaving little leeway for further delays if the space station is to remain occupied. Astronauts have lived on the space station continuously for more than a decade.
Fox News has more on the implications on the delayed launch of the Russian spacecraft:
That makes the potential for an unmanned International Space Station very real — and NASA could have seen it coming, said Christopher C. Kraft, the former director of NASA’s Manned Spaceflight Center.
“You can‘t put your head in the sand about the fact that you’re going to have failures,” he told FoxNews.com. Failures are to be expected in vehicles as old as the Soyuz — or the American shuttle for that matter, Kraft said.
. . .
“The whole thing is a damn house of cards,” Kraft told FoxNews.com. ”Without the space shuttle, you leave yourself extremely vulnerable to losing the whole space station,” he said.
. . .
Astronauts have been living aboard the station, without interruption, for almost 11 years. NASA has insisted last month’s accident will have no adverse influence on the International Space Station crew, because their existing supplies of food, water and oxygen are sufficient.
Could the International Space Station go unmanned? (Photo: NASA)
So, if NASA doesn’t even have a reliable source for getting astronauts and supplies in and out of space at this point — the August Russian spacecraft crash was the latest of four crashes in the past 10 months — why is it making plans for a rocket that will go to Mars now? According to the Associated Press, NASA has plans to build one rocket per year for 15 years in the 2020s and 2030s.
The design of the new rocket — the Space Launch System — will be more similar to Apollo than the recently retired rockets, which were winged and reusable. Atlantis, the last space shuttle launched by NASA with the old design for example, flew 135 missions. The new rockets will most likely be one-and-done, with new ones built for every launch, due to their size, shape and heavier reliance on liquid fuel.
The two photos below show Apollo and the concept Space Launch System design.
Apollo 11 (Photo: NASA)
Space Launch System concept design. (Image: NASA)
Watch this animation of the concept Space Launch System concept:
The Associated Press reported that some of the design elements, the deadline and the requirement for such a rocket were dictated by Congress. The project will cost $35 billion.
Space shuttles Endeavour and Discovery meet in a "nose-to-nose" photo opportunity as the vehicles switch locations Aug. 11 at NASA's Kennedy Space Center, Fla. Now in Orbiter Processing Facility-1 (OPF-1), Discovery will go through more preparations for public display at the Smithsonian's National Air and Space Museum Steven F. Udvar-Hazy Center in Virginia next spring. Endeavour will be stored in the Vehicle Assembly Building (VAB) until October, when it will be moved into OPF-2 to continue being readied for display at the California Science Center in Los Angeles next summer. (Photo: NASA/Frankie Martin)
According to Space.com, “NASA retired the space shuttle to devote its resources to sending astronauts beyond low-Earth orbit, to an asteroid, back to the moon and eventually Mars.”
The Associated Press contributed to this report.
Comments (26)
Sign In To Post Comments! Sign In
Popular Stories
Paper Details Obama Admin’s Alleged Secret Note Sent to Iran: If Israel Attacks, We Won’t Get Involved 569 Comments
‘Made Up Religion’: TV Historian Enrages Muslims, Receives Threats After Producing UK Documentary Questioning Islam’s Beginnings 394 Comments
This Is the Creationists‘ Response to Scientist Bill Nye’s Viral Pro-Evolution Video Claiming They Harm Children 386 Comments
Roseanne Barr: Most Billionaires ‘Violent Pedophiles’ & ‘Heartless’ Cocaine Addicts 368 Comments
President Obama Issues Major ‘Green Energy’ Executive Order 327 Comments
Faith
- This Is the Creationists‘ Response to Scientist Bill Nye’s Viral Pro-Evolution Video Claiming They Harm Children 386 Comments
Pakistani Muslim Cleric Accused of Framing Disabled Christian Girl in Koran-Burning Case Read More- ‘Made Up Religion’: TV Historian Enrages Muslims, Receives Threats After Producing UK Documentary Questioning Islam’s Beginnings 394 Comments
Meet the Controversial German Imam Accused of Brutally Beating His Wife & Pushing Sharia Law Read More
‘Self-Proclaimed Messiah’ & Unification Church Leader the Rev. Sun Myung Moon Has Died — Here’s His Life Story Read More
Business
- President Obama Issues Major ‘Green Energy’ Executive Order 327 Comments
- Germany’s Upcoming Court Ruling Will be Huge for the EU Read More
Ford Looks to Beat Toyota for Best-Selling Car in 2012 With This Model 150 Comments
Bernanke & QE3: Here’s What You Need to Know Read More- ‘Extortion’: Why Did the Labor Department ‘Drop the Hammer’ on Oregon Farmers? 302 Comments
Technology
- This Is the Creationists‘ Response to Scientist Bill Nye’s Viral Pro-Evolution Video Claiming They Harm Children 386 Comments
‘TaserDrone’: Hackers Weaponize Quadcopter With Actual ‘Shocking’ Technology Read More
Ever Heard of the Wild ‘Burning Man’ Festival in the Middle of the Nev. Desert? Here’s Your Primer Read More
Stanford Develops Technology ‘Better Than Steroids’ for Athlete Recovery Read More
Have You Pretended to Know What ‘the Cloud’ Is? You’re Not Alone Read More
Submitting your tip... please wait!
antimaher
Posted on September 15, 2011 at 9:49amSpace shuttle Atlantis flew 32 flights, not 135. STS-135 was the designated mission number for Atlantis’ last flight.
Report Post »80mesh
Posted on September 15, 2011 at 6:46amlooks like zerobamao’s new phallic symbol
Report Post »antimaher
Posted on September 15, 2011 at 9:42amAtlantis didn’t fly 135 missions. Their wer 135 total shuttle missions amomg all the shuttles.
Report Post »bmw5gs
Posted on September 15, 2011 at 5:49amAs long as NOBOMA and his boys on captial hill are in his new rocket when they launch im all for spending the money. Lets start the count down now.
Report Post »tbl10
Posted on September 15, 2011 at 2:29amI truly find it hard to believe, that a new smaller shuttle could not be developed with the newest carbon polymers that would increase the versatility of the shuttle. It all comes down to a bunch of old scientists stuck in the past and continuing old traditions. The original shuttles were built from technology of the 70′s. Now this new space delivery system looks like a Saturn V 2.0. I think its time to infuse NASA with some new younger blood.
Report Post »BlowTorchJocky
Posted on September 15, 2011 at 11:22amYep, it’s basically a Saturn V with two solid fuel rocket boosters strapped on. If they go forward with the concept it will work. But why go back to 1960′s technology?
Report Post »Brents Torts
Posted on September 14, 2011 at 10:58pmInsanity
Report Post »durkadurka
Posted on September 14, 2011 at 10:29pmYou got to give NASA credit for still being able to do what they do despite all the interference from the federal government. Every year their bugets get slashed in favor of giving wellfare to bums and potheads, and every year they are forced to focus more and more on things that don’t have “space” and “exploration” in them.
If we were serious about space exploration, we would focus on developing a cheaper way to put things into orbit. Strapping things to rockets is really expensive, and you can blame gravity for that; The further you have to go the more gear you need, which means more fuel to lift it, and more fuel to lift that fuel, etc.
Something along the lines of a space elevator would make up for its initial costs in the long run. It has to be CHEAP to get vehicles into space. Obviously it’s not right now, and private industry can’t really justify the costs.
If NASA could demonstrate how one could make money in space, the private industry would create a huge boom in space tech.
Report Post »Ohello
Posted on September 14, 2011 at 10:27pmHey, why drill for oil now, it would take 10 years before it has an impact. Let’s put NASA on to energy generation using nature friendly energy. This rocket will take years to get to Mars, no point in doing it now. We need our money to pay interest to the Chinese anyway. Hey, may we can get Donald Trump to sell it to the Chinese to pay off our 14 Trillion dollar debt!!!
Report Post »sam_who
Posted on September 14, 2011 at 7:47pmAren’t you supposed to build the new bridge BEFORE you demolish the old bridge. Now that the shuttle fleet is retired … “Hey, let’s build a new class of space vehicle”. Morons.
Report Post »Bernard
Posted on September 14, 2011 at 6:15pmJust like any failing economy we now have become good at building monuments and giant rockets for largely worthless purposes. Other nations with space programs are using them for commercial use. Due to their low cost, they can launch other nation’s satellites at a fraction of the cost of NASA. But the biggest issue for an advanced space system as ours is the commercial aspect of it.
Report Post »Instead of trying to build rockets for space tourism, NASA should concentrate on space mining. Just the Van Allen belt of meteors holds vast amounts of metals to precious metals. The technology for such endeavors would put this nation as a leader in space mining, including creating branch technologies for our economy. The Van Allen belt is not the only source, but on the moon and even on Mars are open for such mining. We cannot afford the luxury of just space exploration without having dividends from it.
tomloy
Posted on September 14, 2011 at 6:12pmOrion is a boondoggle that should be cancelled. What the US needs is cheap access to space and Orion is NOT it. The US needs to go to Virgin Galatic and give them money to convert spaceship one
Report Post »to a full orbital, which they are working on.
Wes in the Midwest
Posted on September 14, 2011 at 5:48pmLet’s see, if the 1/2 billion dollars that we flushed down the drain with the now
Report Post »bankrupt solar panel company had gone to NASA at least we would have got
some bang for our buck. Let’s vote these tinker-toy politicians out of office.
MUDFLAPS
Posted on September 14, 2011 at 4:36pmhey could we start with a complimentary one way trip for all the liberals? Starting in the white house???
Report Post »TH30PH1LUS
Posted on September 14, 2011 at 6:17pmMars Needs Politicians!
Report Post »Sky0bserv3r
Posted on September 14, 2011 at 4:18pmThis is just the Ares V with a name change and a paint job, and a lot more red tape to keep it from happening.
Report Post »pkoning
Posted on September 14, 2011 at 4:07pmWhy a rocket? Because they are more reliable and less expensive than the Shuttle. The Shuttle design is compromised by politics — for example, the fact that it has (or had) O-rings in the solid boosters that caused the Challenger disaster is a direct consequence of political favors for the manufacturer of that section.
The way I look at it is that the ISS exists to give the Shuttle its mission, and the Shuttle existed to serve the ISS. Neither of them ever had a valid excuse on its own, and with the Shuttle retired, the ISS is now definitely an orphan without even the slightest reason for existing. Shut it down, walk away… it doesn’t matter.
Report Post »pyeatte
Posted on September 14, 2011 at 6:01pmNot quite. SpaceX is set to start supply launches this Dec to the station with manned flights in a couple of years and done for a lot less money. This was the plan but I think the shuttle should have stayed active until the new stuff is ready.
Report Post »HellPhish89
Posted on September 14, 2011 at 3:14pmi thought obama wanted new tech… a giant Saturn V ripoff plus some boosters is not new tech. btw, it looks like something made up in the Kerbal Space Program game.
Report Post »Lion420
Posted on September 14, 2011 at 2:57pmWhy are we going back to rockets?? Is this a joke? The Space Shuttle is “too old” so instead we’re going to go back to rockets? WTF?
Report Post »Elena2010
Posted on September 14, 2011 at 3:07pmBecause the design just works better than the shuttles w/one external liquid propellant tank and twin solid propellant boosters.
When you put the manned portion above the fuel portion, you have greater chance of escape if something goes wrong. Furthermore, there is no insulation to crack a heat shield since the heat shield is under the reentry vehicle which is snugly protected by the next stage.
Staged rockets allow for the flexibility of low earth orbit, high earth orbit, and non-orbital paths. Liquid propellants can be turned off and on, further adding to the flexibility of the overall craft.
Report Post »Salamander
Posted on September 16, 2011 at 7:35pmAnybody want to take a bet on the Space Elevator?
Report Post »SgtB
Posted on September 14, 2011 at 2:48pmMaybe its time that we cut NASA funding from the public sector and make it all a private venture with some competition. I know that there are several companies that already do regularly scheduled launches to put payloads in orbit. Why do we need a bloated gov’t agency anymore?
Report Post »fuzzy20841
Posted on September 14, 2011 at 2:28pmI am amazed that the politicians continually tell us that they are looking for ways to increase employment yet cancel programs that are cost efficient, technology rich and produce many good jobs.
Report Post »On the other hand they are happy to fund bogus green technology and public sector boondoggles to the tune of TRILLIONS, If one tenth of the last stimulus were put into the space program and military research we would be awash in good jobs and technological spinoffs!
threedoor
Posted on September 14, 2011 at 2:19pmWe should never have had the shuttle program or ISS to begin with. Von braun was correct that if we built a space station we would be stuck in LEO fot 50 years. We needed to have set up a perminant presence on the moon. Manufacturing and mining would have soon followed, and then on to manned Mars missions.
Report Post »TH30PH1LUS
Posted on September 14, 2011 at 6:20pmA moon base is essential to space exploration.
Not to mention one heck of a military advantage…. Probably why the Chinese are scrambling to get there now…
Report Post »